And if one can fit 4 scsii cards in one computer without driver compliants,
it's an very interesting experiment to try, ain't it ? :D
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
PGP Key: http://www.genline.nu/mag_pgp.txt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Livingston <tsl@volition.org>
To: Magnus Näslund(b) <mag@bahnhof.se>; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Date: den 3 oktober 1999 06:41
Subject: RE: [OT] FibreChannel(or something) + Soft RAID
>
>Magnus Näslund wrote:
>> Hello, i'm working on a project that includes a large amount of
>> image files.
>> There will be around 15 million files around 100Kb ~= 1.5TB.
>> I am looking for cheap but _reliable_ ways of achieving this.
>
>I'm not quite sure what you'd consider cheap for this. Certainly 1.5TB
>doesn't really fall into the traditional "cheap" model ;)
>
>The solution that first comes to my mind is using relatively standard
>hardware. If you used two or four channel u2w or u2w lvd controllers, you
>can fit 15 drives per channel. Two four channel u2w controllers could run a
>max of 120 disks, and at say... 18G per disk, you could have 2.1TB online,
>just through two pci slots. also, 3 dual channel controllers with 15
drives
>would hit about 1.5TB. Performance, while probably quite fast, won't be in
>line with that number of drives * their max throughput.. or really anything
>close... as that many drives will completely saturate the scsi busses
>involved. You could probably end up with as much as four of five four
>channel controllers... with less drives per controller... and get a
>considerable performance boost... though if it's a network centric
>application it's worth noting that you can't use close to all of this
>speed... one channel at 80MB/sec far faster than even several 100mbit
cards
>fully saturated.
>
>Software RAID has a limitation of 12 drives per set. You can up this a
>certain amount... but to combine all of these drives into one set, you
would
>likely make X raid5 sets, maybe one per channel, and then combine the
result
>using raid1 or linear. Though you'll be using more disks for parity.
>
>Tom
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/